EN BANC

[B.M. NO. 1678. December 17, 2007.]

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW , BENJAMIN

M. DACANAY , petitioner.

RESOLUTION

CORONA , J : p

This bar matter concerns the petition of petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay for leave to
resume the practice of law.
Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960. He practiced law until he
migrated to Canada in December 1998 to seek medical attention for his ailments. He
subsequently applied for Canadian citizenship to avail of Canada's free medical aid
program. His application was approved and he became a Canadian citizen in May 2004.
On July 14, 2006, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-
Acquisition Act of 2003), petitioner reacquired his Philippine citizenship. 1 On that day, he
took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine Consulate General in
Toronto, Canada. Thereafter, he returned to the Philippines and now intends to resume his
law practice. There is a question, however, whether petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay lost his
membership in the Philippine bar when he gave up his Philippine citizenship in May 2004.
Thus, this petition.
In a report dated October 16, 2007, the Of ce of the Bar Con dant cites Section 2, Rule
138 (Attorneys and Admission to Bar) of the Rules of Court:
SECTION 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. — Every
applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the
Philippines , at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and a
resident of the Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme Court
satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him,
involving moral turpitude, have been led or are pending in any court in the
Philippines.

Applying the provision, the Of ce of the Bar Con dant opines that, by virtue of his
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship, in 2006, petitioner has again met all the
quali cations and has none of the disquali cations for membership in the bar. It
recommends that he be allowed to resume the practice of law in the Philippines,
conditioned on his retaking the lawyer's oath to remind him of his duties and
responsibilities as a member of the Philippine bar.
We approve the recommendation of the Of ce of the Bar Con dant with certain
modifications.
The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. 2 It is so delicately affected
with public interest that it is both a power and a duty of the State (through this Court) to
control and regulate it in order to protect and promote the public welfare. 3
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Adherence to rigid standards of mental tness, maintenance of the highest degree of
morality, faithful observance of the rules of the legal profession, compliance with the
mandatory continuing legal education requirement and payment of membership fees to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) are the conditions required for membership in
good standing in the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law. Any breach by a
lawyer of any of these conditions makes him unworthy of the trust and con dence which
the courts and clients repose in him for the continued exercise of his professional
privilege. 4
Section 1, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:
SECTION 1. Who may practice law. — Any person heretofore duly admitted as a
member of the bar, or thereafter admitted as such in accordance with the
provisions of this Rule, and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to
practice law.

Pursuant thereto, any person admitted as a member of the Philippine bar in accordance
with the statutory requirements and who is in good and regular standing is entitled to
practice law.
Admission to the bar requires certain quali cations. The Rules of Court mandates that an
applicant for admission to the bar be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years
of age, of good moral character and a resident of the Philippines. 5 He must also produce
before this Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character and that no charges
against him, involving moral turpitude, have been led or are pending in any court in the
Philippines. 6
Moreover, admission to the bar involves various phases such as furnishing satisfactory
proof of educational, moral and other quali cations; 7 passing the bar examinations; 8
taking the lawyer's oath 9 and signing the roll of attorneys and receiving from the clerk of
court of this Court a certificate of the license to practice. 1 0
The second requisite for the practice of law — membership in good standing — is a
continuing requirement. This means continued membership and, concomitantly, payment
of annual membership dues in the IBP; 1 1 payment of the annual professional tax; 1 2
compliance with the mandatory continuing legal education requirement; 1 3 faithful
observance of the rules and ethics of the legal profession and being continually subject to
judicial disciplinary control. 1 4
Given the foregoing, may a lawyer who has lost his Filipino citizenship still practice law in
the Philippines? No.
The Constitution provides that the practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be
limited to Filipino citizens save in cases prescribed by law. 1 5 Since Filipino citizenship is a
requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof terminates membership in the
Philippine bar and, consequently, the privilege to engage in the practice of law. In other
words, the loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege to practice law in
the Philippines. The practice of law is a privilege denied to foreigners. 1 6
The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization as a citizen of
another country but subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA 9225. This is because "all
Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have
lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of [RA 9225]." 1 7 Therefore, a Filipino
lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is deemed never to have lost his
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225 . Although he is
also deemed never to have terminated his membership in the Philippine bar, no automatic
right to resume law practice accrues.
Under RA 9225, if a person intends to practice the legal profession in the Philippines and
he reacquires his Filipino citizenship pursuant to its provisions "(he) shall apply with the
proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice." 1 8 Stated otherwise,
before a lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 can resume his
law practice, he must first secure from this Court the authority to do so, conditioned on:
(a) the updating and payment in full of the annual membership dues in the
IBP;
(b) the payment of professional tax;
(c) the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal
education; this is specially signi cant to refresh the
applicant/petitioner's knowledge of Philippine laws and update him of
legal developments and
(d) the retaking of the lawyer's oath which will not only remind him of his
duties and responsibilities as a lawyer and as an of cer of the Court,
but also renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines.
Compliance with these conditions will restore his good standing as a member of the
Philippine bar.
WHEREFORE, the petition of Attorney Benjamin M. Dacanay is hereby GRANTED, subject to
compliance with the conditions stated above and submission of proof of such compliance
to the Bar Confidant, after which he may retake his oath as a member of the Philippine bar.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, C.J., Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales,
Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Nachura and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Quisumbing, J., is on leave.
Leonardo-de Castro, J., took no part.

Footnotes

1. As evidence thereof, he submitted a copy of his Identi cation Certi cate No. 07-16912 duly
signed by Immigration Commissioner Marcelino C. Libanan.
2. In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Deliquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edillon , A.C. No.
1928, 19 December 1980, 101 SCRA 612.
3. Heck v. Santos, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1657, 23 February 2004, 423 SCRA 329.

4. In re Atty. Marcial Edillon, A.C. No. 1928, 03 August 1978, 84 SCRA 554.
5. Section 2, Rule 138, Rules of Court.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 6. Id.
7. Sections 2, 5 and 6, id.

8. Sections 8 to 11 and 14, id.

9. Section 17, id.

10. Sections 18 and 19, id.

11. In re Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, 09 January 1973, 49 SCRA 22; In re Atty.
Marcial Edillon, supra note 3.
12. Section 139, RA 7160.
13. Resolution dated August 8, 2000 in Bar Matter No. 850 (Rules on Mandatory Continuing
Legal Education for Members of the IBP).
14. Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions v. Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Co ., G.R. No. L-
23959, 29 November 1971, 42 SCRA 302.
15. See last paragraph of Section 14, Article XII.

16. In re Bosque, 1 Phil. 88 (1902).

17. Section 2, RA 9225. Emphasis supplied.
18. Section 5 (4), id.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com